Next to contributions by corporations political contributions from candidates would seem to stand most in need of restriction. The English Corrupt and Illegal Practice Prevention Act is very explicit and drastic on this subject. It even goes to the length of forbidding contributions for charitable purposes subsequent to the public announcement of the candidate’s intention to stand for a borough. Our own legislation, however, has been very fragmentary except in so far as candidates were affected by the general publicity requirements. By an act which went into effect, August, 1892, Massachusetts prohibited political committees from soliciting contributions from candidates who, however, might “make a voluntary payment of money—for the promotion of the principles of the party which the committee represents, and for the general purposes of the committee.” While doubtless excellent as a statement of ideal relations it is questionable whether this enactment materially increased the obstacles intervening between campaign committees and candidates’ pocketbooks. At least the legislature of the same state found it necessary in 1908 to provide that political committees should not solicit money from a candidate as a prerequisite to giving him his nomination papers.[86] A new departure was made by the Ohio law of 1896, known as the Garfield Act,[87] which endeavoured to grade candidates’ expenses according to the number of votes cast, limiting them to $100 for five thousand voters or less, and providing that they should not exceed $650 in any case.[88] In case of violation the office of a successful candidate could be declared vacant at any time during his term. California, Missouri, Montana, Minnesota, and New York, have also attempted the limitation of candidates’ contributions or expenditures.[89] In 1895, Connecticut and New York forbade contributions by candidates except to authorised committees or party agents.[90] California, in 1907, adopted the rather doubtful expedient of limiting contributions from candidates according to the length of term and salary of the office for which they are contesting.[91] Perhaps the most significant step that has been taken in this direction was the action of New York which in 1906 prohibited contributions from candidates for judicial offices.[92]
With these exceptions contributions by candidates are in general free from legal regulation. There have been comparatively few great exposures to awaken the public conscience to the abuses that have grown up in this connection, but as to the widespread and extremely scandalous nature of these abuses no one who is in the least familiar with practical politics can have the slightest doubt. Broadly considered any large contribution by a candidate toward his own election is manifestly indelicate, not to say frankly improper. Custom has rendered us so familiar with this practice, however, that we are inclined to accept it as a matter of course. There is a certain gambling spirit inherent in politics which is profoundly potent for evil. Primarily this is due, of course, to the inevitable uncertainties of campaigning. No single factor contributes to it more largely than the habit of “assessing” candidates for office. Honest and able men are frequently repelled from politics when they encounter this system. Some of them may hesitate to make the material sacrifices involved and are consequently deemed miserly by the politicians, although it is not the amount of money demanded but rather the uses to which these men know the money will be put that leads them to withdraw. It is not too much to maintain that the conditions now existing in many places are worse than the property qualifications once required by law to make one eligible to hold office. Our present “voluntary” contribution system, rendered practically obligatory by party authorities, is more burdensome on the candidate than a property qualification because it requires him not only to have property but also to sacrifice a considerable part of it to obtain office or the chance of office. The old property qualifications were really lighter and more democratic since they merely required prospective office holders to own so much, and all who possessed more than this fixed sum were eligible equally. The existing system which allows voluntary contributions by candidates unlimited as to amount is equivalent to a property qualification interpreted in the light of the prospective generosity of the candidate. Party managers are continually under temptation to name the man who has the more money and can be expected to make the larger contribution. Of course this does not mean that the man with the biggest “bar’l” is always nominated. Other qualifications such as the man’s education, character, and equipment for campaigning, must be taken into account as well as his ability and inclination to pay. Or if one candidate is placed on the ticket solely because of his liberality the general average must be raised by a larger admixture of brains and character on the part of his running mates. So long as candidates’ contributions are unlimited as to amount we are, nevertheless, openly tolerating conditions which give the maximum effect to wealth as a qualification for public office. True we wish to encourage our men of wealth to go into politics, but we desire them to do so on the basis of their brains and character, not on the basis of their dollars. Even without the use of money in their own interest they enjoy a tremendous advantage for candidacy in their leisure and freedom from material cares. On the other hand the multi-millionaire backed almost solely by his own wealth and unlimited as to the amount he can spend on his campaigning has already caused considerable annoyance in our political life and is likely to become an unmitigated nuisance if checks are not applied betimes. Although cases of this sort are relatively infrequent as yet they are likely to occur more commonly in the future. Business prizes have been so large until recently that they have absorbed the attention of most of our men of wealth. To our captains of industry the money rewards of an office were as nothing, and the honour it conferred added little to their importance. Washington’s recently acquired prominence as a winter residence for wealthy families may appear to be nothing more than a whim of gilded society, but the relationships thus established are certain to stimulate political ambitions in new quarters. With increasing power and social prestige attached to office,[93] more owners of great fortunes are likely to enter politics in the future. In general we have every reason to rejoice that this is the case, but we should also endeavour to adjust the terms of competition so that no undue political weight shall be given to the brute force of millions.
Underlying the system of contributions by candidates is the uncritical view that the latter should pay largely because they are to enjoy personally the honours and emoluments of office. Nominees, at least successful nominees, are deemed to be the special favourites of the party, and hence morally obligated to contribute generously to its support. Little consideration is given by those holding such views to the tremendous tax laid upon the vitality of candidates by the strenuous modern methods of campaigning, certainly a burden large enough in most cases to justify their exemption from heavy financial contributions in addition. But there are other and more serious logical defects in the theory justifying such impositions upon candidates. Normally, of course, assessments of this character must be recouped out of the earnings of the office, although it is said sometimes to happen that the sum demanded for campaign expenses is larger than the salary for the entire term of occupancy. One of our states, as we have seen, attempts to limit candidates’ contributions to a certain ratio of official earnings.[94] The clear implication of all this is that the salary of office is considered to represent first, a payment for the public services rendered by the office holder, and second, a surplus over the preceding which should be devoted to campaign expenses. If we accept this view we virtually accept the principle of the payment of campaign expenses in part at least by the state. One who repudiated this principle might therefore consistently demand the reduction of all official salaries by the amount of the campaign surplus which they contain over and above the value of services actually rendered by incumbents. As a matter of fact such a reduction would be most unfortunate, the truth being, as we have already had occasion to note, that most official salaries in the United States are too low. And, finally, a consistent believer in the principle of the payment of campaign contributions by the state might object to its realisation through the underhanded and coercive method of assessments levied upon candidates. Some perfectly frank and legal method of administering the subsidy would be far preferable.
Both in practice and theory, therefore, grave objections may be urged against a laisser faire policy in regard to campaign contributions by candidates. Effective publicity may possibly suffice to bring the abuses which have developed in this connection within bounds. The existing system, however, is old, widespread, and deeply entrenched. Public sentiment against it is far from being so strong as the facts warrant. Particularly significant in this connection is the recent action of New York in prohibiting contributions from judicial candidates. Doubtless the reason for this special limitation was the peculiar sanctity and impartiality which we associate with the functions of the judiciary. Yet in ideal at least these high qualities should attach to other public offices. So far, therefore, as the sanctity and impartiality of public office in general can be cultivated by prohibiting or limiting campaign contributions we should apply the reform to the legislative and administrative branches of government as well as to the judiciary.
It is worth noting that complete prohibition of such contributions, as in the New York instance, will probably involve the limitation of contributions by others than candidates. A judicial or other nominee prohibited by law from using money on his own behalf might, for example, knowingly or unknowingly, owe his election largely to a few rich supporters who perhaps would not hesitate at some later time to try to use the influence which they had thus obtained. Indeed it is one of the redeeming features of the present system that men of ample means have sometimes bought independence in office by financing their own campaigns. If, therefore, it should prove desirable to restrict candidates’ contributions in the future, care should also be taken to limit the contributions of third parties. Otherwise the latter, by assuming the financial burden taken from the shoulders of nominees might attempt to purchase political influence on which they could realise after those whom they assisted had obtained office.
While the foregoing argument has been directed chiefly to the case of candidates for elective office it is also applicable in some particulars to the campaign contributions of officials under civil service rules. Usually efforts are made with a considerable degree of success to protect the latter from the assessment system. The old abuse of extortion by officials of higher rank is in a fair way to be obliterated, although sporadic cases of this sort still occur even in the federal service. Unfortunately it is easy to appoint collectors who themselves hold no office under civil service rules, but whose intimate personal relations with high officials are widely known to subordinates. Civil service employees of higher grades are probably too well informed of their rights to submit to extortion veiled in this or any other guise, but there are doubtless considerable numbers of the less intelligent and poorly paid civil servants, at least in some of our state and local governments, who are really being assessed frequently and heavily under the pretence, of course, of “voluntary” contributions. Probably it is true everywhere that those who suffer worst from this despicable malpractice are precisely those who are least able to bear it. Even this, however, is not the chief evil of the system. Absolute non-partisanship in their official work can hardly be expected of a body of men who are constantly being approached for campaign contributions, and in effect being reminded thereby that, civil service or no civil service, they are deemed to be subject in a peculiar degree to party taxation. Moreover one of the great weaknesses of the civil service establishment is the conviction on the part of the opposition party, inevitable whether or not it be justifiable, that civil service employees are being exploited for contributions by the party in power. Publicity may dispel both this abuse, so far as it exists, and also the misconceptions based upon it. If not it may prove desirable in the future to prohibit absolutely all campaign contributions from employees under civil service rules. Administration will certainly be much easier and suspicion more difficult when no contribution whatever is legally permissible than under any system which permits “voluntary” offerings.
In addition to the prohibition or limitation of campaign contributions from certain specified sources the suggestion has been touched upon that it may prove desirable in the end to limit the campaign contributions of individuals. Just what theoretical basis might be found for fixing the exact amount of such limitation is not clear. Possibly the number of voters, the number of candidates, and the estimated legitimate costs of a given campaign could be combined in some way to give a definite result. In practice, however, the question of fixing a satisfactory limit to individual contributions will hardly present any great difficulty. Evasion of such limitations by means of dummy contributors is, as we have seen,[95] not very probable. There ought, however, to be a very stringent penalty against the custom of handing considerable sums to campaign treasurers personally with the understanding that the amount shall be turned in as the individual contribution of the treasurer himself. Limitation of the amount of individual contributions, together with the other
safeguards that have been discussed, may prove a very effective substitute for ante-election publicity. If we are assured that corporation contributions are barred, that the contributions of candidates and civil service employees are either prohibited or strictly limited, and finally that the contributions of others are limited to relatively small amounts, it becomes a matter of distinctly minor importance to know who are the financial supporters on either side. Given these conditions the publication of such information would scarcely attract any notice even during the heat of a campaign.
As a first effect the restriction of contributions according to all or a part of the various propositions discussed above would probably reduce the aggregate of campaign funds considerably. It remains to be seen whether this will have an unfavourable influence upon our political life. Shocked by the magnitude of the sums recently employed many of our social doctors would advise rigorous starvation and copious bloodletting as essential to the radical cure of our campaign diseases. In spite of the necessity of parties under the conditions of American government public prejudice is strongly inclined to underestimate the value of party work. Yet considering the size of the country and the magnitude of the interests involved it is doubtful if the amount expended in the last presidential election, to cite a specific instance, was uneconomical. Certainly an even larger sum could be spent profitably along educational lines in our greater campaigns. One trouble now is that quite apart from the illegal or immoral practices charged against American campaign managers the latter have in too many cases carried on their activities in a conventional fashion which is rather ineffective and wasteful. Thousands of dollars are spent in circulating documents and speeches. Yet printed matter of this character is so cheap and nasty in appearance, so unattractive in form, so devoid of illustration, and often so dry and prolix that it is promptly and deservedly thrust into the waste-basket by practically all recipients. Progressive business men have learned the value of modern forms of advertising in newspapers, magazines, street cars, etc., but the political manager seldom employs it with any effect. In many districts illustrated lectures would be an enormous improvement over the cheap mouthings of the ordinary cart-tail spell-binder. Campaign text-books, as the term is at present understood, are at best dry and formal arsenals of fact fit only for the higher grade of speakers and leaders, or, at worst, mere hodge-podge collections of sensational clippings useful only to equip already convinced partisans with a few accusations and arguments which they can then monotonously parrot forth from the beginning to the end of the campaign. Constructed with some regard to pedagogical principles and popular requirements such books might be made extremely influential. By these and other improved methods our campaigns may finally come to be worth what they cost. Certainly few services are of more importance in a democracy than rousing the people to political issues, instructing them as to men and policies, leading them out from narrow personal concerns to participation in the broad life of the state. Even with all the restrictions on the collection of campaign funds which have been mentioned above it is improbable that sufficient funds for all legitimate purposes will in the long run be denied. If any shortage threatens, campaign managers may better their situation by the same policy which any institution dependent upon public support must follow under similar circumstances,—that is, they must so impress the value of the work they are doing upon the people that ample material support will be freely offered. If this cannot be done they will simply have to get along with less, the probability being, of course, that the smaller amount is quite as much as is necessary and certainly as much as they deserve.
One certain consequence of the prohibition of large contributions will be greater activity on the part of campaign collectors to secure contributions in smaller amounts. This would seem desirable in every way. Until we commit ourselves to the principle of state subsidies it ought to be part of common school instruction everywhere to insist on the duty of the voter to contribute something toward party support. Possibly large contributions might be found unobjectionable in the future if given for some specific purpose, the circulation of a certain speech, for example, or some other educational form of political activity. Considering the abuses which have been charged against campaign managers the almost universal habit of making gifts to them on a carte blanche basis is remarkable to say the least. Taking a suggestion from educational practice, large campaign contributions might be further legitimatised in case it were stipulated, that equal amounts should be raised in small sums by campaign managers. If the time be short in which to comply with a condition of this sort, the interest in such collections, on the other hand, would be very great. Certainly it could scarcely be argued that a sum thus collected represented nothing more than the selfish desire of a rich man to promote one of his personal interests.
Besides prohibiting or limiting contributions from certain sources it may also prove desirable to fix time limits within which large gifts may not be received. Among other conditions voluntarily accepted in 1908 the Democratic National Committee pledged itself to receive no contribution above $100 within three days of the election. The time limit in this case was scarcely long enough to be very impressive, but the principle involved is of some importance. Such facts as we possess with regard to the history of campaign funds indicate “fat-frying” of a most strenuous and compromising character during the last few days preceding an election. Alarmist and hysterical reports about doubtful states were prepared on both sides and presented tearfully and confidentially to men of wealth, to candidates, and to other persons from whom money might perchance be obtainable. The probability is very strong that the great sums thus raised and of necessity spent at the eleventh hour were more largely subject to waste, theft, and corrupt use, than any other money which was placed in the hands of campaign managers. Prohibition of contributions within a short period prior to election or their limitation in amount during such period ought to reduce this evil considerably, at least on the collecting side. If subjected to such a restriction campaign managers will, of course, seek to secure as large a sum as possible before the time limit expires, and they will also take care to keep a sufficient reserve on hand for the culminating needs of the campaign. Nevertheless they will be pretty effectually estopped from calamity howling at the last minute as a means of obtaining large additional “slush” funds.